How about this, Religion has already proven gods exist, Science says there is no evidence for this claim, therefore they are incompatible. That is, I think the core, which to be sort of nasty, is how religion gets a free pass, they and science accept this dispute and both wilfully go on to discussion Transubstantiation and angles on a needle head, all the while having this burden dragging science down.

The two will only be compatible once they both have the same answer to whether or not gods exist.

Elemenope: I find your discussion of philosophy particularly interesting, since I'm studying philosophy this term. I'm not aware, however, that every philosopher feels that way about metaphysics; at least, not from the course material (by John Fisher)... I'm not closed to the idea, but that's not what the text was saying...

Ty: "You know what's condescending? Showing up to an atheist forum to preach." Since I haven't actually been preaching anything, and you were the one who started with the bad attitude for no reason... I consider that remark, and your previous remark to me, to be as much preaching as your apparent definition entails. As for the rest of your ad-hom analysis... I couldn't possibly care less what you think about me. You're just one voice out of a whole cacophany.

Also to Elemenope, and Jonjon: Just covering bases. Some people are the kind of person that would ban someone for having a dissenting opinion they couldn't refute. Since I don't know Ty personally, and I do know that moderators who do that have such an abrasive and "condescending" approach to people they disagree with, the point was to keep Ty from deleting my account or posts without cause. Now that he's promised to not delete my account or posts, simply because his opinion is different from mine, you won't see me making that remark to him again.

Silly me. I guess I was just being analytical in my approach. Post-modernism strikes again!

"Whereas analytic philosophy of history had emphasized scientific analogies for historical knowledge and advanced the goals of verifiability and generalizability in historical knowledge, English-speaking philosophers in the 1970s and 1980s were increasingly influenced by hermeneutic philosophy, post-modernism, and French literary theory (Rorty 1979). These philosophers emphasized the rhetoric of historical writing, the non-reducibility of historical narrative to a sequence of “facts”, and the degree of construction that is involved in historical representation. Affinities with literature and anthropology came to eclipse examples from the natural sciences as guides for representing historical knowledge and historical understanding. The richness and texture of the historical narrative came in for greater attention than the attempt to provide causal explanations of historical outcomes."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#RecTopHis

Narrative histories are not a science per se. But they are shored up greatly by evidence. Narrative histories are like hypotheses. They must have evidence to be believable. That evidence comes from a variety of sources, the most reliable of which are verified scientifically.

This discussion was in the context of epistemology. I was trying to point out that statements are factual when they have reliable evidence to support them.

I've been rather irritated lately about history because I've been tutoring some kids at a private Catholic school and their World History textbook actually teaches stuff from the Old Testament as history (like information about the proto-Isrealites as if this is actual history). I have a serious problem with that because there is not sufficient evidence to teach the OT as history. Especially the part where the proto-Israelites were supposed slaves of the Egyptian Pharaoh. From what I've read on this subject, there is absolutely no evidence for this claim. And yet it is being taught as history.

We determine facts about people from the objects they leave behind.

Yes.

The history of objects IS the history of people!

No.

What?!

Exactly.

Look, you're arguing that history (the narrative of events that has occurred) is reductive to the traces of physical objects left behind. I think that's a bit silly. Cultures are so much more than their stuff, and events are so much more than their locations. Discarding direct accounts because they are inaccurate is unwise; rather, taking those accounts and correlating with the objects that archaeology has unearthed can give a more complete picture. You can even tell a lot about a people from what they choose to lie about, what they choose to embellish., what they choose to omit.

History is not a science. Archaeology is a science that *informs* history.

"That'll give you a history of objects, not a history of peoples."

What?! The history of objects IS the history of people! We determine facts about people from the objects they leave behind. Yes, a history may have written accounts, but those accounts have varying degrees of reliability. People embellish. They cover things up/deceive. They misunderstand. etc. But when you dig up something out of the ground, you can determine things about it that a written account may not give you.

One glaring example is the "history" of the Israelites wondering in the desert for 40 years with out leaving any artifacts behind. Is this history? No. It is speculation/myth until archaeologists dig up some supporting evidence-- especially in light of the fact that other outside documents do not corroborate this account.

Archaeology IS a science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science#Types_of_archaeological_science

Actually, even civility is fairly optional. Of all the bannings I am aware of, only one was for being truly and epically annoying. The rest were spam violations or evangelism violations.

Also, it is entirely possible for a Christian to be well treated on this forum. I go out of my way to try and be civil and fair minded with Jonjon. But Jonjon has mastered some tactics you have not: he is sometimes right, and he isn't boring.

You should try that.

In point of fact, by being spectacularly wrong, you do us all a service. Why would we ban someone we can just crush with the weight of reasoned argument, and so demonstrate clearly that we have better answers?

The only way your posts will get deleted is if you attempt to advertise a product or post spam (or you manage to make duplicate posts, in which case we'll do some clean-up, but I don't think that counts). The only way to get banned is to become repeatedly or flagrantly abusive of members of the forum. Don't worry; you are in no danger of being censored here so long as you are minimally civil.

"Ty: Way to show some tolerance for different beliefs. If it's condescending for someone to preach on an atheist board, why are you doing it... or are your views the only ones exempt from that rule? (I wonder how long he'll tolerate my presence on the boards... he is a moderator, after all. Wouldn't it be convenient for him to just get my account deleted, let-alone my posts?)"

Seriously? Please point out any preaching I have done. Even one instance will do.

Why on earth would I ban you? I find your comments pointless and irrelevant, but neither of those is a banning offense.

Aww, I like metaphysics...

angels, try not to taunt the moderators. They do a damn fine job, and baiting them is a poor choice. I believe there have been, what, 2 or 3 bans ever imposed on these forums? Say mean things about them, and what will happen is that they'll tolerate you indefinitely, and everyone else will start getting very grumpy with you. You wouldn't like me when I'm grumpy...

Science is, technically, a philosophical practice; but philosophy, in general, is often no different from a religious belief.

No. Science is *justified* by philosophical practice (hence, the "Philosophy of Science"; Hume and Locke for establishment of the epistemological problems, through Nietzsche for rekindling philosophic interest in the topic, up to Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos as the giants in the modern era), but it itself is merely an empirical methodology. Philosophy, in general, is easily distinguishable from religious belief; the only part of modern philosophy that comes close to religion as such is metaphysics, and most philosophers would argue that branch has long since died ignominiously (depending on who you talk to, with Plato or with Whitehead).

LRA: I figured I might miss the point... so I took the safe route, and tried making a joke...

Ty: Way to show some tolerance for different beliefs. If it's condescending for someone to preach on an atheist board, why are you doing it... or are your views the only ones exempt from that rule? (I wonder how long he'll tolerate my presence on the boards... he is a moderator, after all. Wouldn't it be convenient for him to just get my account deleted, let-alone my posts?)

Kodie: It's just what I believe. I'm not here to force anything on anybody. When people ask me questions, I answer as best I can. If I have to guess at God's motives, beyond what the Bible reveals, I'd have to say that God has made rules even He is not exempt from following, when dealing with Creation, to maintain impartiality and justice. Eventually, anyone who has caused others to suffer for no reason will be punished as much, or as little, as they deserve. As for scientists horning in on God's territory... I would think that, if God's hands are tied when it comes to free will, God would want scientists to figure things out that people would accept and trust. Maybe, one day, someone will be so inspired to stand up against the Janjaweed militia...

JonJon: Good points, but I would say that they don't negate the studies of those fields either. Science is, technically, a philosophical practice; but philosophy, in general, is often no different from a religious belief. Even so, people still consider philosophical writings to be knowledgeable and wise, and good guidelines for how to live... and, in most cases, any other kind of philosopher will tell you that his or her philosophy is based on the suggestions of the evidence, too...

By that definition of science, I think comparative theology counts as science. (Which it isn't.)

Science is about method. No matter how carefully conducted, archaeology isn't capable of following that method. Neither is theology. Neither are any of the humanities, really. Heck, some of the social sciences are questionable, although we are typically charitable toward them. Quite often a social science will make use of scientific methodology, and as far as it does, it's science. Science is actually not about the knowledge that is produced by science; if it were, then the standard for judging science would be quite different. We call things science based not upon whether they produced knowledge or revealed/delineated "fact," but upon the methodology that science uses.

Yet, there's a science of history. It's called archaeology.

That'll give you a history of objects, not a history of peoples. History, generally speaking, is a narrative-constructing enterprise. At its best, it is narrative-reconstructing enterprise, but all the same is very distinct in its methods and goals from a proper science. Archaeology can (and should) inform that narrative construction, but cannot be substituted for it.

I traced the article to NPR and this neat video of the procedure -
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200801184

"You can think of it like the wooden frame of a house."

I want you to think how that works here. It is like refilling a glass when it's empty. It's not the same glass of Pepsi you had earlier, it's the same glass, but the soda you put in is new stuff, and already "alive." The cells got the heart to beat again, but it wasn't just a dead heart, it was completely empty of living or dead cells. Dr. Doris Taylor in the NPR interview likened it to a ghost of a heart. Not even a corpse of a heart, but a ghost. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18222824

It's amazing they can do stuff like this, because every time scientists manage to advance their works in this way is another contrast to the great things god doesn't in any way do. Do you think found a non-cellular Jesus matrix on Friday and injected him with new cells so that he became Jesus again and rolled out of his grave and walked around by Sunday?

How come god only did it the one time? If god can do this, how come doctors can do it? Why do we rely on doctors to figure this stuff out for a perfect god who doesn't interfere? Better than a beating heart! I had my son sacrificed and then brought him back to life to absolve you of sin just to prove it could be done (oh, and also that I really love you), that's so much better than medical procedures that could extend your life that only took a couple hundred thousand years to become medically possible - for a rat.

I have heard that religion answers the question "why" in ways that science cannot, but does it really? Why doesn't god interfere, doing things he presumably could do? Why does he allow scientists to start horning in on his territory? And why did it take people so long to get this ability? Your earlier answers did not begin to answer any questions for me. It is all his "reasons" and justice and love, and discipline and free will - people are supposed to suffer bad hearts and doctors are supposed to struggle to learn how to cure diseases with only the help of scientists who came before them. Those are all rationalizations, they are not reasons.

EDIT:
Carefully listen starting at 1:50:
The Princess Bride Scene at Miracle Max

You know what's condescending?

Showing up to an atheist forum to preach.

JonJon and Nope-- Yet, there's a science of history. It's called archaeology.

Angel-- you missed the point entirely.

Elemenope, and anyone else who's interested, here's the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-508028/grow-heart-scientists-bring-dead-organ-life-injecting-new-cells.html

Bypassing snide, condescending remarks... which is why I'm mainly dealing with the three posts directly after mine (no offense to those of you who have been civil after the condescending remarks others have made)...

Custador: The difference is, these scientists didn't get rid of absolutely every cell in the heart; they only replaced some of them. By and large, the heart was still the same heart. I will, however, take your word about "doctors don't bring people back to life"; considering that I'm not a medical professional, and there are all kinds of definitions of "life"... and you happened to be citing the current medical defintion.

LRA: mostly dead or not; even if I'm wrong on that part, you're still conceding that I was at least partially right, by saying they were "mostly dead". I know it's nit-picking, but still...

That would be better, yes. I don't think I would contest that.

I concur. Perhaps better would be "once religion gets into epistemological claims about things that yield easily to scientific investigation, it encroaches on science's territory". Much like when it makes knowledge claims about historical events contradicted (or unattested, in the case of notable events) by records of uninterested parties, it treads on historical (in the sense of the discipline) territory.

LRA: "Once religion gets into epistemological claims, it encroaches on science's territory."

Science is not the only thing that gets to make epistemological or even ontological claims. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

To put my question more informally, who died and put science in charge of epistemology? Science can be in charge of determining some kinds of empirical facts (always provisionally, of course, upon how good a job it continues to do) but that's not the same as epistemology. Again, I might be misunderstanding you, but if you're thinking what I think you're thinking, then I think you're wrong.

Would any Christian actually want Jesus' resurrection to be explainable by resuscitating rodents? The whole point of it is that it's a miracle.

"Thus, we conclude that resurrection is possible, under certain conditions."

You say 'we' when you mean 'only you'.

"We already know that dead bodies can be brought back to life: doctors do it all the time."

My inner ER nurse cringed. We most certainly do not bring people back from the dead; they're not dead until their brain-stem is dead. Heck, it's quite possible for a person to be laying in a bed on life support with their body to all intents and purposes alive and well but their brain dead - regardless of the state of the body, they are dead and there's no coming back from that. So no, sorry but you're wrong.

"We also know that scientists brought a dead rat's heart back to life after several days, by replacing dead cells with healthy cells and giving it a small electrical charge. Basically, that's the idea: by replacing dead material with healthy material, a person's body can be brought back to life, given enough energy for a catalyst."

Let's assume for a moment that's true but examine that with a more critical eye: You've just said, in so many words "Scientists made a dead thing alive again by taking away the dead stuff and replacing it with alive stuff". Um.... That's not bringing something back from the dead! The medical equivalent would be hiding the corpse of a deceased patient, abducting a healthy person off of the street, putting them in the corpse's bed and saying "It's a miracle! I have healed the occupant of this bed!"

"Thus, we conclude that resurrection is possible, under certain conditions."

I hope you can see that I have demonstreted you are mistaken.

Those folks were only mostly dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrYNaaYSjs

We also know that scientists brought a dead rat's heart back to life after several days, by replacing dead cells with healthy cells and giving it a small electrical charge.

Citation, please.

Okay, we'll start with the resurrection issue.

First, we have to figure out what resurrection is. Resurrection isn't like the reanimation of zombies: simply put, resurrection is bringing a dead body back to life.

We already know that dead bodies can be brought back to life: doctors do it all the time. We also know that scientists brought a dead rat's heart back to life after several days, by replacing dead cells with healthy cells and giving it a small electrical charge. Basically, that's the idea: by replacing dead material with healthy material, a person's body can be brought back to life, given enough energy for a catalyst. Thus, we conclude that resurrection is possible, under certain conditions.

You're going to have to elaborate what you consider to be the explanations in the bible that are compatible with science so we can illustrate to you in bullet points how they're not. Otherwise, we're just saying "nuh-uh" and what are you going to say next, "yah-hah!"?

Boring.

Here's an easy one: Resurrection: Resurrection is possible or impossible. YES/NO? Please take a position and go for it.

"Right now, given the explanations of the Bible, ..."

I'm really not sure what that actually means ... the Bible describes supernatural events that are incompatible with science by their very nature.

The minute you try to disprove evolution, the Big Bang or any other scientific theory that you think is incompatible with your beliefs and is therefore false, you're on science's territory. Be prepared to receive the verbal equivalent of a flying tackle from Richard Dawkins.